Electoral competitiveness in North Carolina, 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. 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

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.
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_North_Carolina,_1912-2014&oldid=9121399"