Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Electoral competitiveness in Michigan, 1912-2014

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Competitiveness in
state legislatures
2014 badge.jpg
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. In Michigan the percentage of U.S. House races won by a margin of 10 percent or less decreased from 29.4 percent in 1946 to 7.1 percent in 2014.

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 Michigan 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 Michigan

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, Michigan
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 38 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1970 38 100 50 0 7.9 13.2 0 0 96.7 78.9 100 93.3
1974 38 100 63.2 0 10.5 13.2 0 5.3 81.5 71.1 100 66.7
1978 38 100 63.2 0 7.9 15.8 0 13.2 100 52.6 100 100
1982 38 100 52.6 0 10.5 28.9 0 13.2 91.3 60.5 100 77.8
1986 38 100 47.4 0 5.3 13.2 0 2.6 100 76.3 100 100
1990 38 100 47.4 0 2.6 18.4 0 15.8 92.9 73.7 93.3 92.3
1994 38 100 42.1 0 2.6 10.5 0 0 95.7 60.5 100 92.3
1998 38 100 39.5 0 2.6 13.2 0 0 100 76.3 100 100
2002 38 100 42.1 0 5.3 18.4 0 0 100 13.2 100 100
2006 38 100 44.7 0 15.8 26.3 0 0 96.8 81.6 100 94.4
2010 38 100 31.6 0 0 5.3 0 0 100 21.1 100 100
2014 38 100 28.9 0 5.3 13.2 0 0 100 71.1 100 100

State House

State House competitiveness, Michigan
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 110 100 51.8 0 4.5 10.9 0 2.7 95.8 87.3 98 93.5
1970 110 100 52.7 0 4.5 11.8 0 3.6 100 80.9 100 100
1972 110 100 54.5 0 8.2 15.5 0 6.4 94.3 79.1 95.7 95
1974 110 100 60 0 10 17.3 0 16.4 96.3 74.5 100 91.4
1976 110 100 61.8 0 7.3 12.7 0 7.3 98 89.1 98.3 97.4
1978 110 100 63.6 0 4.5 10.9 0 16.4 98.8 72.7 98.2 100
1980 110 100 58.2 0 4.5 8.2 0 18.2 93.6 85.5 91.7 97.1
1982 110 100 57.3 0 10.9 19.1 0 20 92.6 61.8 93 92
1984 110 100 51.8 0 9.1 17.3 0 1.8 94.9 90 91.4 100
1986 110 100 58.2 0 5.5 10.9 0 1.8 93.9 89.1 98.1 88.9
1988 110 100 55.5 0 4.5 10.9 0 5.5 95.2 95.5 93.4 97.7
1990 110 100 55.5 0 5.5 9.1 0 12.7 96.7 82.7 96.3 97.3
1992 110 100 50 0 10 19.1 0 11.8 93.1 79.1 92 94.6
1994 110 100 49.1 0 6.4 12.7 0 0.9 100 78.2 100 100
1996 110 100 52.7 0 3.6 7.3 0 0 96.6 80.9 100 93.5
1998 110 100 47.3 0 8.2 17.3 0 0.9 100 40 100 100
2000 110 100 47.3 0 3.6 8.2 0 1.8 100 80.9 100 100
2002 110 100 42.7 0 7.3 13.6 0 0.9 98.1 49.1 96.2 100
2004 110 100 47.3 0 7.3 16.4 0 1.8 97.2 65.5 97 97.4
2006 110 100 52.7 0 7.3 14.5 0 4.5 96.3 73.6 100 93.6
2008 110 100 60.9 0 4.5 10.9 0 9.1 100 58.2 100 100
2010 110 100 42.7 0 7.3 19.1 0 2.7 84.5 52.7 74.3 100
2012 110 100 46.4 0 6.4 19.1 0 1.8 94 75.5 100 90.7
2014 110 100 42.7 0 7.3 13.6 0 0 97 60.9 93.3 100

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, Michigan
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 17
1916 8.4
1920 53.1
1924 70.3
1928 41.7
1932 8.2
1936 18.5 2.8
1938 5.8
1940 5.7 0.3 6.5
1942 2.4 5.9
1944 1 10
1946 17 0 5.9 29.4 0 35.4 21.8
1948 17 0 5.9 11.8 0 2.2 1.7 7.8
1950 17 0 5.9 17.6 0 0.1
1952 18 0 0 16.7 0 1.6 11.5 0.3
1954 18 0 11.1 27.8 0 1.8 11.6
1956 18 0 5.6 16.7 0 11.5 9.5
1958 18 0 16.7 22.2 0 7.5 6.4
1960 18 0 0 11.1 0 3.7 2 1.3
1962 19 0 5.3 10.5 0 2.9
1964 19 0 5.3 31.6 0 29.1 33.7 12.2
1966 19 0 15.8 21.1 0 12.1 21.5
1968 19 0 0 5.3 5.3 7.5
1970 19 0 0 0 0 34 1.7
1972 19 0 10.5 21.1 0 6.1 14.7
1974 19 0 15.8 36.8 0 4.4
1976 19 0 10.5 26.3 0 5.7 5.5
1978 19 0 15.8 26.3 5.3 4.3 13.7
1980 19 0 10.5 26.3 10.5 7.1
1982 18 0 5.6 11.1 16.7 17.1 6.5
1984 18 0 5.6 16.7 11.1 4.7 19.1
1986 18 0 5.6 5.6 0 36.8
1988 18 0 0 5.6 5.6 22.2 8
1990 18 0 0 5.6 5.6 16.5 0.7
1992 16 0 6.3 31.3 6.3 9.2
1994 16 0 6.3 25 0 9.6 23
1996 16 0 0 6.3 0 18.8 14.6
1998 16 0 0 6.3 6.3 24.4
2000 16 0 6.3 6.3 0 1.7 5.3
2002 15 0 0 0 13.3 23.1 4.1
2004 15 0 0 0 0 3.5
2006 15 6.7 7.1 14.3 6.7 15.9 14.2
2008 15 0 6.7 20 6.7 29.9 16.7
2010 15 0 6.7 20 0 18.6
2012 14 0 7.1 21.4 0 21.5 9.6
2014 14 0 0 7.1 0 13.8 4.2

Navigation map

Click on a different state below for more detailed data on electoral competitiveness.
http://ballotpedia.org/Competitiveness in STATE state legislative elections
v • e
2014 Elections to State legislatures
State Senate elections
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kentucky • Maine • Maryland •Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
SLP badge.png
State House elections
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Election information
v • e
State legislatures
Legislatures
Alabama (H, S) · Alaska (H, S) · Arizona (H, S) · Arkansas (H, S) · California (A, S) · Colorado (H, S) · Connecticut (H, S) · Delaware (H, S) · Florida (H, S) · Georgia (H, S) · Hawaii (H, S) · Idaho (H, S) · Illinois (H, S) · Indiana (H, S) · Iowa (H, S) · Kansas (H, S) · Kentucky (H, S) · Louisiana (H, S) · Maine (H, S) · Maryland (H, S) · Massachusetts (H, S) · Michigan (H, S) · Minnesota (H, S) · Mississippi (H, S) · Missouri (H, S) · Montana (H, S) · Nebraska · Nevada (A, S) · New Hampshire (H, S) · New Jersey (GA, S) · New Mexico (H, S) · New York (A, S) · North Carolina (H, S) · North Dakota (H, S) · Ohio (H, S) · Oklahoma (H, S) · Oregon (H, S) · Pennsylvania (H, S) · Rhode Island (H, S) · South Carolina (H, S) · South Dakota (H, S) · Tennessee (H, S) · Texas (H, S) · Utah (H, S) · Vermont (H, S) · Virginia (H, S) · Washington (H, S) · West Virginia (H, S) · Wisconsin (A, S) · Wyoming (H, S)
SLP badge.png
2025
2024
2023
Historical elections
2022 •  2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001 • 2000
Features of
state legislatures
State senates
State houses
Leadership positions
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electoral_competitiveness_in_Michigan,_1912-2014&oldid=9121405"