Electoral competitiveness in New Jersey, 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, New Jersey saw a decrease in the number of elections won by a small margin from 1971 to 2013.

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 New Jersey 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 New Jersey

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph01_Marg_Stateno30NewJersey2015_04_23.png|Marginal Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph02_Uncont_Stateno30NewJersey2015_04_23.png|Uncontested Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph03_Inc_Stateno30NewJersey2015_04_23.png|Incumbent Win Rates]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph04_US_HS_Stateno30NewJersey2015_04_23.png|Competitiveness in U.S. House Seats]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph05_UpBallot_Stateno30NewJersey2015_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, New Jersey
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	40	100	40	0	17.5	40	0	0	86.4	55	100	87.5
1973	40	100	72.5	0	7.5	32.5	0	0	63	67.5	90.9	43.8
1977	40	100	67.5	0	7.5	15	0	0	81.5	67.5	88.2	100
1979	40	5	50	0	0	0	0	0		0
1981	40	100	55	0	17.5	22.5	0	0	85.2	67.5	76.5	100
1983	40	100	57.5	0	17.5	22.5	0	0	88.2	85	94.1	82.4
1987	40	100	60	0	5	22.5	0	12.5	97.1	87.5	100	92.9
1989	40	5	0	0	50	50	0	0		0
1991	40	100	32.5	0	10	22.5	0	2.5	82.1	70	71.4	92.9
1993	40	100	40	0	12.5	17.5	0	10	91.4	87.5	100	88
1995	40	2.5	100	0	0	0	0	0		0
1997	40	100	40	0	2.5	17.5	0	10	94.1	85	100	90.5
1999	40	2.5	100	0	0	0	0	0		0
2001	40	100	50	0	10	15	0	10	91.2	85	100	85.7
2003	40	100	55	0	2.5	10	0	7.5	97.1	85	100	94.1
2007	40	100	57.5	0	0	2.5	0	10	92	62.5	93.8	88.9
2009	40	5	50	0	0	0	0	0		0
2011	40	100	60	0	0	10	0	2.5	100	85	100	100
2013	40	100	60	0	7.5	12.5	0	5	100	97.5	100	100

State House

State House competitiveness, New Jersey
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
1969	80	100	26.3	0	6.3	22.5	0	0	96.8	77.5	87.5	100
1971	80	100	50	0	22.5	45	0	0	79.1	53.8	85.7	75.9
1973	80	100	82.5	0	20	37.5	0	0	71.4	61.3	100	41.7
1975	80	100	61.3	0	21.3	35	0	0	82.6	86.3	80	100
1977	80	100	67.5	0	11.3	27.5	0	0	96.4	70	100	90.5
1979	80	100	55	0	12.5	31.3	0	1.3	84.9	91.3	78.7	100
1981	80	100	53.8	0	7.5	22.5	0	1.3	98.1	65	100	95.2
1983	80	100	55	0	5	15	0	0	96.9	81.3	100	93.3
1985	80	100	37.5	0	11.3	28.8	0	1.3	79.5	91.3	66.7	96.8
1987	80	100	47.5	0	5	17.5	0	2.5	96.8	77.5	100	94.7
1989	80	100	55	0	16.3	30	0	1.3	95.8	88.8	100	91.4
1991	80	100	27.5	0	10	21.3	0	3.8	78	73.8	58.1	100
1993	80	100	33.8	0	6.3	13.8	0	5	92.5	83.8	100	90.7
1995	80	100	37.5	0	7.5	22.5	0	5	90.5	78.8	90.9	90.2
1997	80	100	40	0	7.5	13.8	0	6.3	100	82.5	100	100
1999	80	100	43.8	0	3.8	7.5	0	5	96.2	98.8	100	93.8
2001	80	100	55	0	6.3	13.8	0	6.3	95.1	76.3	100	91.2
2003	80	100	58.8	0	10	21.3	0	3.8	92.4	82.5	97.3	89.3
2005	80	100	61.3	0	6.3	12.5	0	7.5	95.8	88.8	97.6	93.3
2007	80	100	60	0	5	8.8	0	7.5	98.1	66.3	97.1	100
2009	80	100	58.8	0	7.5	13.8	0	6.3	100	82.5	100	100
2011	80	100	60	0	5	15	0	1.3	98.4	77.5	100	96.2
2013	80	100	60	0	7.5	15	0	2.5	97.1	85	97.6	96.3

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, New Jersey
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								10.2
1916								12.1
1920								40.8
1924								38.8
1928								20.1
1932								2
1936								20.1
1937									3.1
1940						11.1		3.6	3.4
1942						7.4
1943									11.2
1944						1.6		1.4
1946	14	0	0	14.3	0	18.6			15.9
1948	14	0	21.4	35.7	0	2.8		4.6
1949									4.5
1950	14	0	14.3	28.6	0
1952	14	0	0	28.6	0	12		15
1953									8.7
1954	14	0	0	21.4	0	0.2
1956	14	0	21.4	35.7	0			30.8
1957									10.2
1958	14	0	14.3	28.6	0	4.6
1960	14	0	7.1	21.4	0	12.6		0.8
1961									1.6
1962	15	0	0	13.3	0
1964	15	0	20	26.7	0	24.8		31.9
1965									16.6
1966	15	0	13.3	26.7	0	23.7
1968	15	0	6.7	20	0			2.4
1969									21.6
1970	15	0	6.7	13.3	0	12.3
1972	15	0	6.7	20	0	28.8		25.2
1973									35.3
1974	15	0	0	13.3	0
1976	15	0	13.3	20	0	22.9		2.2
1977									14.3
1978	15	0	13.3	20	0	12.4
1980	15	0	13.3	20	0			14.8
1981									0.1
1982	14	0	0	14.3	0	3.2
1984	14	0	0	7.1	0	29.6		21
1985									40.7
1986	14	7.1	0	0	0
1988	14	0	7.1	7.1	7.1	8.5		13.8
1989									24.4
1990	14	0	14.3	14.3	14.3	3.1
1992	13	0	0	15.4	0			2.8
1993									1.1
1994	13	0	7.7	7.7	0	3.4
1996	13	0	15.4	15.4	0	10.6		19.9
1997									1.1
1998	13	0	7.7	15.4	0
2000	13	0	7.7	15.4	0	3.1		16.4
2001									15
2002	13	0	0	0	7.7	10.1
2004	13	0	0	0	7.7			6.7
2005									10.8
2006	13	0	7.7	7.7	15.4	9.2
2008	13	0	7.7	15.4	7.7	14.4		15.7
2009									3.8
2010	13	0	7.7	15.4	0
2012	12	0	0	8.3	0	19.8		18
2014	12	0	0	8.3	0	13.8

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