Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Electoral competitiveness in Texas, 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, elections for the Texas State Senate have not featured a single general election won within a 5 percent margin in eight of the thirteen elections since 1990.

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 Texas 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 Texas

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, Texas
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 31 48.4 86.7 0 0 6.7 0 66.7 100 73.3 100 100
1970 31 51.6 100 0 0 6.3 0 68.8 100 75 100
1972 31 100 90.3 0 6.5 9.7 0 61.3 100 51.6 100 100
1974 31 48.4 93.3 0 6.7 6.7 0 46.7 100 73.3 100 100
1976 31 51.6 87.5 0 6.3 6.3 0 50 100 81.3 100 100
1978 31 48.4 93.3 0 0 6.7 0 60 100 66.7 100 100
1980 31 51.6 62.5 0 18.8 25 0 25 72.7 68.8 66.7 100
1982 31 100 83.9 0 3.2 3.2 0 58.1 100 67.7 100 100
1984 31 48.4 80 0 6.7 6.7 0 73.3 92.9 93.3 91.7 100
1986 31 51.6 81.3 0 6.3 6.3 0 43.8 100 68.8 100 100
1988 31 48.4 66.7 0 6.7 13.3 0 53.3 100 66.7 100 100
1990 31 51.6 81.3 0 0 6.3 0 50 100 62.5 100 100
1992 31 100 58.1 0 12.9 22.6 0 41.9 88 80.6 83.3 100
1994 31 100 54.8 0 9.7 16.1 0 48.4 92.9 90.3 88.2 100
1996 31 48.4 53.3 0 20 20 0 53.3 100 80 100 100
1998 31 51.6 43.8 0 0 0 0 56.3 91.7 75 100 83.3
2000 31 48.4 53.3 0 0 6.7 0 66.7 100 86.7 100 100
2002 31 100 38.7 0 0 9.7 0 61.3 96 80.6 91.7 100
2004 31 48.4 40 0 0 0 0 73.3 100 93.3 100 100
2006 31 51.6 31.3 0 0 0 0 37.5 100 62.5 100 100
2008 31 48.4 46.7 0 6.7 6.7 0 60 93.3 100 100 88.9
2010 31 51.6 31.3 0 0 6.3 0 50 100 81.3 100 100
2012 31 100 38.7 0 3.2 3.2 0 48.4 100 83.9 100 100
2014 31 48.4 20 0 0 6.7 0 33.3 100 66.7 100 100

State House

State House competitiveness, Texas
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 150 100 94.7 0 4.7 12.7 0 53.3 97.3 75.3 98.2 66.7
1970 150 100 93.3 0 4.7 8 0 62 97.5 79.3 97.3 100
1972 150 100 88.7 0 3.3 8 0 46.7 95.9 49.3 97.1 80
1974 150 100 89.3 0 0.7 2 0 59.3 97.4 77.3 100 81.3
1976 150 100 88 0 0 6 0 65.3 100 70 100 100
1978 150 100 85.3 0 4.7 8 0 56.7 98.3 79.3 98 100
1980 150 100 76 0 8.7 14.7 0 50 92.5 80 91.8 95.5
1982 150 100 76 0 2.7 6.7 0 58.7 96.3 72 100 85.7
1984 150 100 65.3 0 5.3 9.3 0 71.3 91.1 82.7 88 100
1986 150 100 62.7 0 4 12 0 67.3 99.2 83.3 98.7 100
1988 150 100 62 0 6 12 0 60.7 97.6 84 98.8 95.6
1990 150 100 62 0 5.3 10.7 0 60.7 98.3 78 98.6 97.9
1992 150 100 61.3 0 3.3 7.3 0 62.7 95.5 74.7 97.2 92.7
1994 150 100 59.3 0 2.7 5.3 0 66 97.7 85.3 97.4 98
1996 150 100 54.7 0 4.7 9.3 0 62 96.9 84.7 97.2 96.4
1998 150 100 52 0 4 9.3 0 65.3 98.4 84 97 100
2000 150 100 52 0 0.7 4 0 72 99.3 93.3 98.6 100
2002 150 100 41.3 0 2.7 7.3 0 54.7 94.2 80 89.5 98.4
2004 150 100 42 0 4.7 11.3 0 59.3 96.3 90.7 96.2 96.4
2006 150 100 46 0 6.7 9.3 0 46.7 96.8 84 100 94.3
2008 150 100 49.3 0 7.3 10.7 0 50 97 88 98.4 95.7
2010 150 100 34 0 7.3 13.3 0 59.3 84.1 88 67.2 100
2012 150 100 36.7 0 2 6 0 63.3 97.2 71.3 100 95.5
2014 150 100 34.7 0 0.7 2.7 0 64.7 98.4 84 96 100

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, Texas
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 77
1916 63
1920 43.2
1924 57.7
1928 3.7
1932 77.4
1936 75.2 86
1938 100
1940 88.6 62.1 89.4
1942 100 100
1944 62.2 81.7
1946 21 4.8 0 0 66.7 77.1 82.4
1948 21 9.5 0 0 57.1 33.6 46.2 70.5
1950 21 0 4.8 4.8 76.2 80.5
1952 22 0 0 0 95.5 100 6.4 100
1954 22 0 0 4.5 77.3 70.3 79.2
1956 22 0 0 0 77.3 11.4 68.2
1958 22 0 0 4.5 86.4 51.9 76.2
1960 22 4.5 0 0 72.7 17 2 45.5
1962 23 0 4.3 13 21.7 8.5
1964 23 0 0 4.3 0 12.7 26.9 47.9
1966 23 0 0 4.3 73.9 13.4 47.6
1968 23 0 0 0 52.2 1.6 14
1970 23 0 0 0 56.5 7.1 7.2
1972 24 0 0 4.2 45.8 9.3 33.1 3.2
1974 24 0 4.2 8.3 33.3 32.8
1976 24 0 4.2 12.5 25 14.7 3.2
1978 24 0 12.5 20.8 16.7 0.5 0.7
1980 24 0 16.7 20.8 25 14.3
1982 27 0 3.7 7.4 33.3 18.3 7.3
1984 27 0 7.4 11.1 33.3 17.2 27.6
1986 27 0 3.7 3.7 37 6.7
1988 27 0 3.7 7.4 48.1 19.3 12.7
1990 27 0 0 7.4 48.1 23.4 2.5
1992 30 0 3.3 3.3 16.7 4.5
1994 30 0 3.3 16.7 16.7 22.7 7.6
1996 30 16.7 12 20 3.3 11 5.3
1998 30 0 0 3.3 36.7 37.3
2000 30 3.3 0 3.4 26.7 33.6 21.9
2002 32 0 9.4 9.4 28.1 12.1 18.3
2004 32 3.1 3.2 3.2 18.8 23
2006 32 6.3 0 3.3 15.6 26.2 13.4
2008 32 0 0 6.3 25 12.3 11.9
2010 32 0 3.1 9.4 18.8 13
2012 36 0 2.8 5.6 13.9 16.3 16
2014 36 0 2.8 2.8 36.1 28.4 20.7

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_Texas,_1912-2014&oldid=9121391"