Electoral competitiveness in Tennessee, 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, the percent of marginal elections for the Tennessee House of Representatives has decreased from 37.4 percent in 1968 to just 11.2 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 Tennessee 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 Tennessee

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph01_Marg_Stateno42Tennessee2015_04_23.png|Marginal Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph02_Uncont_Stateno42Tennessee2015_04_23.png|Uncontested Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph03_Inc_Stateno42Tennessee2015_04_23.png|Incumbent Win Rates]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph04_US_HS_Stateno42Tennessee2015_04_23.png|Competitiveness in U.S. House Seats]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph05_UpBallot_Stateno42Tennessee2015_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, Tennessee
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	33	100	60.6	0	0	6.1	0	54.5	83.3	72.7	76.5	100
1970	33	54.5	55.6	0	0	11.1	0	50	84.6	72.2	77.8	100
1972	33	48.5	56.3	0	6.3	6.3	0	43.8	100	75	100	100
1974	33	57.6	63.2	0	5.3	10.5	10.5	47.1	91.7	70.6	100	80
1976	33	51.5	70.6	0	5.9	5.9	0	47.1	88.9	52.9	100	66.7
1978	33	51.5	47.1	0	5.9	5.9	0	52.9	76.9	76.5	62.5	100
1980	33	48.5	75	0	25	25	0	18.8	100	81.3	100	100
1982	33	54.5	61.1	0	11.1	16.7	0	61.1	100	72.2	100	100
1984	33	51.5	76.5	0	5.9	11.8	0	70.6	100	64.7	100	100
1986	33	51.5	64.7	0	17.6	23.5	0	52.9	100	70.6	100	100
1988	33	48.5	68.8	0	0	0	0	50	100	81.3	100	100
1990	33	51.5	52.9	0	17.6	17.6	0	52.9	84.6	76.5	75	100
1992	33	48.5	62.5	0	25	25	0	37.5	91.7	75	90	100
1994	33	51.5	47.1	0	5.9	17.6	0	35.3	92.3	76.5	87.5	100
1996	33	48.5	68.8	0	25	31.3	0	18.8	76.9	81.3	87.5	60
1998	33	51.5	35.3	0	0	0	0	52.9	100	82.4	100	100
2000	33	51.5	70.6	0	0	11.8	0	35.3	100	70.6	100	100
2002	33	51.5	41.2	0	0	17.6	0	35.3	92.3	76.5	100	85.7
2004	33	48.5	56.3	0	12.5	18.8	0	25	83.3	75	80	100
2006	33	51.5	41.2	0	5.9	5.9	0	47.1	90.9	64.7	100	85.7
2008	33	48.5	43.8	0	6.3	25	0	31.3	88.9	56.3	100	100
2010	33	51.5	35.3	0	17.6	17.6	0	35.3	92.3	76.5	85.7	100
2012	33	48.5	6.3	0	0	18.8	0	43.8	87.5	50	50	100
2014	33	54.5	27.8	0	0	0	0	55.6	100	61.1	100	100

State House

State House competitiveness, Tennessee
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	99	100	49.5	0	15.2	22.2	0	41.4	88.5	52.5	85.2	92
1970	99	100	56.6	0	15.2	19.2	0	37.4	81.5	65.7	96.7	75
1972	99	100	51.5	0	12.1	19.2	0	34.3	86.8	68.7	84.6	96.3
1974	99	100	63.6	0	7.1	15.2	3	44.8	89.7	81.3	100	78.9
1976	99	100	66.7	0	8.1	12.1	0	56.6	96.2	79.8	98.1	91.7
1978	99	100	60.6	0	10.1	18.2	0	49.5	95	80.8	92.9	100
1980	99	100	58.6	0	4	14.1	0	42.4	95.4	87.9	96.2	93.9
1982	99	100	60.6	0	2	7.1	0	66.7	97.6	84.8	98	96.9
1984	99	100	62.6	0	3	8.1	1	67.3	100	79.6	100	100
1986	99	100	61.6	0	5.1	9.1	0	62.6	98.8	84.8	100	97.1
1988	99	100	59.6	0	6.1	10.1	0	64.6	95.4	87.9	96.6	93.1
1990	99	100	57.6	0	6.1	12.1	0	58.6	89.4	85.9	88.5	90.9
1992	99	100	64.6	0	10.1	13.1	0	42.4	97.6	83.8	98.1	96.8
1994	99	100	59.6	0	8.1	11.1	0	48.5	93.7	79.8	92.3	96.3
1996	99	100	61.6	0	5.1	8.1	0	51.5	97.6	82.8	100	93.8
1998	99	100	59.6	0	2	5.1	0	60.6	98.9	90.9	98.3	100
2000	99	100	58.6	0	1	5.1	0	57.6	97.8	92.9	96.5	100
2002	99	100	54.5	0	6.1	15.2	0	45.5	95	80.8	95.7	93.9
2004	99	100	53.5	0	2	7.1	0	50.5	98.9	87.9	98	100
2006	99	100	53.5	0	3	7.1	0	50.5	100	80.8	100	100
2008	99	100	49.5	0	8.1	10.1	0	58.6	96.5	86.9	95.6	97.6
2010	99	100	34.3	0	6.1	12.1	0	42.4	86	86.9	73.3	100
2012	99	100	28.3	0	5.1	10.1	0	44.4	98.7	76.8	100	98.1
2014	99	100	26.3	0	5.1	6.1	0	58.6	97.6	83.8	91.7	100

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, Tennessee
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								37.5
1916								13.8
1920								3.1
1924								9.6
1928								7.7
1932								34.4
1936								38.1	62.2
1938									43.4
1940						41.6		35	44.2
1942						52.4			40.3
1944								21.3	26.9
1946	10	0	0	0	80	43.6			34.4
1948	10	0	0	0	30	32.3		14.3	33.8
1950	10	0	10	10	80				56.2
1952	9	0	0	0	55.6	56.1		0.3	58.7
1954	9	0	0	0	44.4	39.9			75.3
1956	9	0	0	11.1	55.6			0.6
1958	9	0	0	0	66.7	61.2			29.2
1960	9	0	0	0	88.9	43.5		7.2
1962	9	11.1	25	25	55.6				21.5
1964	9	0	0	33.3	33.3	4.7	7.2	11
1966	9	0	22.2	22.2	33.3	11.4			78.4
1968	9	0	0	11.1	11.1			5.3
1970	9	0	0	11.1	11.1	4			6.1
1972	8	0	0	0	12.5	23.8		38.9
1974	8	0	12.5	25	37.5				11.8
1976	8	12.5	0	0	25	5.5		13.1
1978	8	0	0	0	25	15.9			11.7
1980	8	0	0	0	37.5			0.3
1982	9	0	11.1	11.1	22.2	23.9			19.1
1984	9	0	11.1	11.1	44.4	28.5		16.4
1986	9	0	0	11.1	22.2				8.5
1988	9	0	0	0	33.3	30.7		16.4
1990	9	0	0	0	44.4	38.9			24.9
1992	9	0	11.1	11.1	11.1			5.2
1994	9	0	11.1	22.2	11.1	22	14.5		9.7
1996	9	0	0	0	0	25		2.6
1998	9	0	0	11.1	44.4				39.9
2000	9	0	0	0	33.3	33.8		3.9
2002	9	0	0	11.1	22.2	10.1			3.1
2004	9	0	0	0	11.1			14.4
2006	9	0	0	0	0	2.8			39.5
2008	9	0	0	0	33.3	34.6		15.3
2010	9	0	0	0	0				32.6
2012	9	0	0	0	11.1	36.2		20.7
2014	9	0	0	0	11.1	32			51

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