Electoral competitiveness in Mississippi, 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. For example, while just as many incumbents are running for reelection, the percentage of Mississippi state legislators winning reelection has increased from 1971 to 2011.

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 Mississippi 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 Mississippi

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph01_Marg_Stateno24Mississippi2015_04_23.png|Marginal Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph02_Uncont_Stateno24Mississippi2015_04_23.png|Uncontested Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph03_Inc_Stateno24Mississippi2015_04_23.png|Incumbent Win Rates]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph04_US_HS_Stateno24Mississippi2015_04_23.png|Competitiveness in U.S. House Seats]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph05_UpBallot_Stateno24Mississippi2015_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, Mississippi
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
1971	52	100	96.2	0	0	0	0	71.2	92.6	51.9	96.2	0
1975	52	100	96.2	0	1.9	3.8	0	76.9	100	65.4	100	100
1979	52	100	92.3	0	1.9	3.8	0	53.8	96.2	50	96	100
1983	52	100	96.2	1.9	0	2	0	71.2	100	67.3	100	100
1987	52	100	86.5	0	7.7	11.5	0	69.2	91.7	69.2	94.1	50
1991	52	100	82.7	0	1.9	1.9	0	67.3	94.3	67.3	96.7	80
1992	52	100	75	0	1.9	7.7	0	42.3	92.9	80.8	93.5	90.9
1995	52	100	65.4	0	7.7	11.5	0	36.5	90.7	82.7	96.4	80
1999	52	100	65.4	0	5.8	9.6	0	65.4	100	80.8	100	100
2003	52	100	57.7	0	3.8	11.5	3.8	38	92.3	78	100	82.4
2007	52	100	51.9	0	3.8	7.7	0	53.8	92.1	73.1	95	87.5
2011	52	100	42.3	0	5.8	7.7	0	53.8	94.4	69.2	90	100

State House

State House competitiveness, Mississippi
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
1971	122	100	97.5	0	1.6	4.1	0	68	97.4	63.9	98.7	100
1975	122	100	96.7	0	0.8	1.6	0	73.8	98.5	55.7	98.5	100
1979	122	100	95.1	0	6.6	11.5	0	57.4	97.1	56.6	97	100
1983	122	100	95.1	0.8	1.7	5	1.6	70	97.4	65	100	50
1987	122	100	92.6	0	2.5	7.4	0	73.8	96.5	69.7	97.5	75
1991	122	100	80.3	0	4.9	10.7	0	63.9	96.6	73	97.3	92.9
1992	122	100	76.2	0	3.3	8.2	0.8	62	95.9	81	94.8	100
1995	122	100	70.5	0	2.5	6.6	0	62.3	96.2	86.9	96	96.4
1999	122	100	70.5	0	4.1	8.2	0	68	96.7	74.6	98.4	91.7
2003	122	100	63.1	0	0.8	5.7	0	59.8	97.9	78.7	97	100
2007	122	100	61.5	0	4.1	7.4	0	60.7	96.8	77.9	96.7	96.9
2011	122	100	48.4	0	7.4	11.5	0	61.5	90.7	79.5	89.1	92.9

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, Mississippi
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								88.3
1916								90
1920								71.4
1924								84.4
1928								64.2
1932								92.9
1936								94.5
1939									100
1940						100		91.6
1942						100
1943									100
1944								87.1
1946	7	0	0	0	100	100
1947						100			100
1948	7	0	0	0	100	100		79.3
1950	7	0	0	0	71.4
1951									100
1952	6	0	0	0	66.7	100		20.9
1954	6	0	0	0	100	100
1955									100
1956	6	0	0	0	100			40.8
1958	6	0	0	0	100	100
1959									100
1960	6	0	0	0	66.7	83.6		3.5
1962	5	0	0	0	100
1963									23.9
1964	5	0	0	0	80	100		74.3
1966	5	0	0	0	40	41.9
1967									40.5
1968	5	0	0	0	80			46.8
1970	5	0	0	0	80	100
1971									54
1972	5	0	20	20	40	20.1		59.9
1974	5	0	0	0	40
1975									7.2
1976	5	0	0	0	20	100		1.9
1978	5	0	0	0	20	17.3
1979									22.1
1980	5	0	0	0	20			1.4
1982	5	0	20	40	20	28.4
1983									17.3
1984	5	0	20	20	40	21.9		24.6
1986	5	0	20	20	20
1987									6.9
1988	5	0	0	0	0	7.8		21
1990	5	0	0	0	20	100
1991									3.3
1992	5	0	0	0	0			9.9
1994	5	0	0	0	0	37.6
1995									11.1
1996	5	0	0	0	0	44.3		5.5
1998	5	0	0	20	40
1999									1.1
2000	5	0	0	0	0	35.2		17.2
2002	4	0	0	0	0	100
2003									6.9
2004	4	0	0	0	50			19.8
2006	4	0	0	0	25	29.2
2007									15.8
2008	4	0	0	0	0	22.9	9.9	13.3
2010	4	0	0	25	0
2012	4	0	0	0	25	17		11.6
2014	4	0	0	0	25	22.5

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 • Erica Shumaker
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 • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • 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