Electoral competitiveness in North Carolina, 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, North Carolina saw a decrease in the number of elections won by a small margin from 1970 to 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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph01_Marg_Stateno33NorthCarolina2015_04_23.png|Marginal Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph02_Uncont_Stateno33NorthCarolina2015_04_23.png|Uncontested Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph03_Inc_Stateno33NorthCarolina2015_04_23.png|Incumbent Win Rates]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph04_US_HS_Stateno33NorthCarolina2015_04_23.png|Competitiveness in U.S. House Seats]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph05_UpBallot_Stateno33NorthCarolina2015_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, North Carolina
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
1970	50	100	86	0	12	22	6	42.6	83.3	63.8	95.5	50
1972	50	100	68	0	12	18	0	56	92	50	90.5	100
1974	50	100	98	0	10	14	2	36.7	69.4	73.5	100	8.3
1976	50	100	92	0	8	14	6	48.9	91.4	74.5	91.2	100
1978	50	100	90	0	12	18	14	39.5	97.1	79.1	96.9	100
1980	50	100	80	0	10	20	0	38	89.7	78	88.6	100
1982	50	100	88	0	8	14	0	38	86.5	74	100	50
1984	50	100	76	0	12	18	0	42	83.8	74	81.8	100
1986	50	100	80	20	2.5	12.5	20	22.5	100	80	100	100
1988	50	100	74	20	17.5	27.5	20	35	91.7	90	90	100
1990	50	100	72	20	12.5	22.5	20	25	88.9	90	88.5	90
1992	50	100	78	0	8	14	0	24	100	74	100	100
1994	50	100	52	0	18	30	0	40	78	82	71	100
1996	50	100	60	0	18	32	0	20	92.7	82	100	85
1998	50	100	70	0	8	20	0	36	91.1	90	100	77.8
2000	50	100	70	0	8	24	0	34	100	88	100	100
2002	50	100	56	0	10	18	0	22	91.9	74	87.5	100
2004	50	100	58	0	6	16	0	34	90.2	82	91.7	88.2
2006	50	100	62	0	6	12	0	44	95.7	94	100	89.5
2008	50	100	60	0	10	20	0	42	100	84	100	100
2010	50	100	38	0	10	16	0	24	84.6	78	71.4	100
2012	50	100	34	0	4	12	0	36	97.2	72	91.7	100
2014	50	100	32	0	4	12	0	40	97.4	78	90	100

State House

State House competitiveness, North Carolina
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
1970	120	100	80	0	14.2	25.8	0	25	91.4	67.5	96.6	77.3
1972	120	100	70.8	0	12.5	20.8	0	31.7	86.3	66.7	87.7	80
1974	120	100	92.5	0	10	13.3	1.7	28	81.9	70.3	100	31.8
1976	120	100	95	0	6.7	12.5	2.5	58.1	97.8	76.9	98.8	80
1978	120	100	87.5	0	10	18.3	0	52.5	96.5	71.7	96.3	100
1980	120	100	80	0	10	25	0	28.3	89.1	76.7	87.7	100
1982	120	100	85	0	6.7	14.2	5.8	48.7	94	74.3	98.5	78.9
1984	120	100	68.3	4.2	11.3	23.5	4.2	45.2	81.7	80.9	79	100
1986	120	100	67.5	41.7	12.9	24.3	41.7	27.1	91.4	82.9	92.3	89.5
1988	120	100	61.7	36.7	14.5	23.7	36.7	34.2	89.2	85.5	85.7	100
1990	120	100	67.5	36.7	14.5	21.1	36.7	38.2	95.5	88.2	100	88
1992	120	100	65	0	10.8	20	0.8	40.3	91.7	70.6	91.4	92.3
1994	120	100	44.2	0	11.7	16.7	0	48.3	80	79.2	66.7	100
1996	120	100	49.2	0	12.5	20.8	0	35.8	95.2	86.7	100	91.8
1998	120	100	55	0	6.7	15.8	0	46.7	94.4	90	100	89.3
2000	120	100	51.7	0	5.8	16.7	0	40.8	95.3	88.3	94.7	97.9
2002	120	100	49.2	0	9.2	16.7	0	45.8	89.5	79.2	84.3	95.5
2004	120	100	52.5	0	4.2	8.3	0	59.2	96	83.3	100	91.7
2006	120	100	56.7	0	5	10	0	52.5	97.1	87.5	100	93.5
2008	120	100	56.7	0	7.5	14.2	0	49.2	98	84.2	96.7	100
2010	120	100	43.3	0	6.7	16.7	0	34.2	88.7	80.8	79.6	100
2012	120	100	35.8	0	7.5	11.7	0	45	94.9	65	90.9	97.8
2014	120	100	38.3	0	5	13.3	0	50	96.1	85	100	94.2

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, North Carolina
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								35.2
1916								16.4
1920								13.5
1924								19.4
1928								9.9
1932								41
1936								46.8	33.4
1940								48.1	51.4
1942						31.8
1944						40.5		33.4	39.2
1946	12	0	0	25	8.3
1948	12	0	0	0	8.3	42.1		27.9	46.9
1950	12	0	8.3	8.3	25	37.3	34.5
1952	12	0	8.3	8.3	25			7.8	35
1954	12	0	8.3	8.3	16.7	100	31.8
1956	12	8.3	0	18.2	25	33.1		1.3	33.9
1958	12	0	8.3	8.3	33.3	40
1960	12	0	8.3	16.7	0	22.9		4.2	9
1962	11	0	9.1	9.1	27.3	20.9
1964	11	0	18.2	27.3	18.2			12.3	13.2
1966	11	0	9.1	27.3	18.2	11.2
1968	11	0	27.3	54.5	27.3	21.1		11.7	5.4
1970	11	9.1	10	10	9.1
1972	11	0	9.1	9.1	18.2	8		41.3	2.6
1974	11	0	9.1	18.2	27.3	25.3
1976	11	0	9.1	27.3	18.2			11.1	31.4
1978	11	9.1	0	20	9.1	9
1980	11	0	18.2	36.4	9.1	0.6		2.2	24.6
1982	11	0	18.2	27.3	9.1
1984	11	0	54.5	54.5	0	3.9		24.1	8.9
1986	11	0	27.3	36.4	0	3.5
1988	11	0	18.2	27.3	18.2			16.3	12.1
1990	11	0	9.1	18.2	0	5.1
1992	12	0	0	25	0	4.2		0.9	9.9
1994	12	0	25	33.3	8.3
1996	12	0	0	16.7	0	6.8		5.1	13.4
1998	12	0	8.3	8.3	25	4.2
2000	12	0	0	0	16.7			12.9	5.9
2002	13	0	0	7.7	15.4	8.7
2004	13	0	0	7.7	0	4.6		12.5	12.9
2006	13	0	7.7	15.4	7.7
2008	13	0	0	0	0	8.7		0.3	3.5
2010	13	0	7.7	30.8	0	12
2012	13	0	7.7	23.1	0			2.1	11.6
2014	13	0	0	0	7.7	1.6

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