Virginia Ranks Low for Election RivalryMajority of Assembly Races This Year Lacked Major-Party Opposition
By Peter Whoriskey and Michael D. Shear
Published November 9th 2003
If voters in Annandale's Chapel precinct thought Tuesday's election would be about making and expressing choices, they were in for a distinct surprise.
The ballot showed one major-party candidate for state senator.
One for state delegate.
One for county supervisor.
One for School Board.
"We should have a choice," said Vernon Sones, recent past president of the Chapel Square West Civic Association, who at age 69 says he takes voting seriously enough to have cast a ballot in every election since he was 21. "The two-party system is the best."
Last week's voting across Virginia was marked by a significant absence of competition, with nearly two of every three state legislative seats lacking major-party opposition. That means Virginia had fewer contested elections than almost any other state, a review of election records shows.
The dearth of opponents this year matches the state's record for the lowest number of seats contested by the major parties since the modern, two-party era of Virginia politics began in the late 1960s.
Nowadays, with both parties viable and with political power split between a Democratic governor and a Republican-led legislature, the lack of choices for voters is viewed by many analysts as a puzzling and corrosive threat to meaningful elections.
"This is a near record for the two-party era in Virginia, but it's not a record to be proud of -- it's a disgrace," said Larry J. Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia. "The essence of democracy is competition."
Slightly more than 64 percent of the Virginia General Assembly elections this year lacked competition from one of the major parties. By contrast, the national average for state legislative elections was 37 percent in 2002, when 45 states held their legislative contests, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy, a group that engages in research and advocacy.
Politicians, party leaders and analysts offered a variety of explanations for the phenomenon in Virginia, with some attributing it to low delegate pay ($17,000), some citing the high costs of financing a legislative race and some drawing attention to the state's political culture.
But at the center of the discussion in the commonwealth and elsewhere in the nation is the subject of partisan redistricting.
In Virginia, as elsewhere, the dominant party in the legislature maps out the political districts, and does so in a manner that often creates almost impregnable districts for its members.
The proliferation of easy-to-use computer mapping has enabled party activists to cut up the districts in an ever more precise and favorable way -- a tactic often purposely used to discourage challengers.
"What you're seeing is a commentary on the power of redistricting," said Robert Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. "Politicians are getting better and better at drawing safe districts. To a challenger, it looks like a hopeless cause."
Of the 11 legislative chambers that changed hands from one party to another in 2002, Richie said, all were in states where districts were drawn by a commission or a court, not the legislature.
Virginia Democrats attribute their absence from many ballots this year to the lines Republicans drew in 2001 for the 100 House districts and 40 Senate districts. With campaign money limited, they said, it is better not to spend it on challenges in perilous political districts.
"If you look at all the gerrymandering that went on, it was shocking," said Mame Reiley, executive director of One Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner's political action committee. "When the lines are drawn and it weighs heavily for the Republicans, you need Don Quixotes who are willing to make the fight."
Republican leaders, however, dismiss the Democrats' accusations about redistricting as partisan whining.
Shawn M. Smith, communications director for the Republican Party of Virginia, said Democrats have failed to provide challengers because they have no winning message.
"The Democratic claims that they have somehow lost their majority because of Republican redistricting are just a sorry excuse," he said, noting that steady Republican gains in the past three decades were achieved despite redistricting controlled by Democrats.
"It just so happens that, with the sheer number of Republicans, there is no opposition because the majority of Virginians support our leadership," Smith said. "If the Democrats had a positive message to run on, they could engage in the debate on the issues."
The cost of running a campaign for the Virginia legislature is also sometimes cited as an impediment to the recruitment of candidates.
The typical House candidate in Virginia spent about $71,000 on campaign expenses in 2001, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics, which collects and disseminates campaign finance data. Often, however, candidates spend much more, using some of their own money as well.
In this election, state Senate challenger David M. Hunt (R) took out a home equity loan and at one point had contributed about $200,000 of his own money, he said. He still lost.
"Even before you can talk about the issues, you have to get the money," said Edwin Bender, executive director of the Institute on Money in State Politics. "Some people think, 'Why would I want to fight the battle?' "
Political experts differed on why Virginia's elections rank among the nation's least competitive. Some noted that modern two-party politics came relatively late to the state, which was dominated by Democrats after Reconstruction until about 30 years ago. And some attributed the trend to a strain of elitism that runs through the state's political culture and history.
"We have in Virginia a culture of nonparticipation -- we have fewer candidates generally for all offices," Sabato said. "Virginia was built on the concept that a few are born to rule and most people are born to be ruled."
Underscoring that argument, he noted that the dearth of candidates is least apparent in Northern Virginia, what he characterized as "the least Virginian part of Virginia."
Whatever the cause, the number of Virginia legislative seats without major-party competition has risen since the early 1990s, when the percentage was about 40 percent.
The proportion of House seats uncontested by Republicans or Democrats was particularly high this year, at 68 percent.
Of the 45 states that had House elections in 2002, only two states had a higher proportion of seats without major-party competition: South Carolina, at 72 percent, and Massachusetts, at 69 percent.
For dedicated voters such as Sones, the lack of choice is a fundamental flaw in the fabric of democracy. "When there's no competition, then a person doesn't feel that they are being pressed -- they can pretty much operate as they see fit," Sones said. "Everyone should be looking over their shoulder."
The ballot showed one major-party candidate for state senator.
One for state delegate.
One for county supervisor.
One for School Board.
"We should have a choice," said Vernon Sones, recent past president of the Chapel Square West Civic Association, who at age 69 says he takes voting seriously enough to have cast a ballot in every election since he was 21. "The two-party system is the best."
Last week's voting across Virginia was marked by a significant absence of competition, with nearly two of every three state legislative seats lacking major-party opposition. That means Virginia had fewer contested elections than almost any other state, a review of election records shows.
The dearth of opponents this year matches the state's record for the lowest number of seats contested by the major parties since the modern, two-party era of Virginia politics began in the late 1960s.
Nowadays, with both parties viable and with political power split between a Democratic governor and a Republican-led legislature, the lack of choices for voters is viewed by many analysts as a puzzling and corrosive threat to meaningful elections.
"This is a near record for the two-party era in Virginia, but it's not a record to be proud of -- it's a disgrace," said Larry J. Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia. "The essence of democracy is competition."
Slightly more than 64 percent of the Virginia General Assembly elections this year lacked competition from one of the major parties. By contrast, the national average for state legislative elections was 37 percent in 2002, when 45 states held their legislative contests, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy, a group that engages in research and advocacy.
Politicians, party leaders and analysts offered a variety of explanations for the phenomenon in Virginia, with some attributing it to low delegate pay ($17,000), some citing the high costs of financing a legislative race and some drawing attention to the state's political culture.
But at the center of the discussion in the commonwealth and elsewhere in the nation is the subject of partisan redistricting.
In Virginia, as elsewhere, the dominant party in the legislature maps out the political districts, and does so in a manner that often creates almost impregnable districts for its members.
The proliferation of easy-to-use computer mapping has enabled party activists to cut up the districts in an ever more precise and favorable way -- a tactic often purposely used to discourage challengers.
"What you're seeing is a commentary on the power of redistricting," said Robert Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. "Politicians are getting better and better at drawing safe districts. To a challenger, it looks like a hopeless cause."
Of the 11 legislative chambers that changed hands from one party to another in 2002, Richie said, all were in states where districts were drawn by a commission or a court, not the legislature.
Virginia Democrats attribute their absence from many ballots this year to the lines Republicans drew in 2001 for the 100 House districts and 40 Senate districts. With campaign money limited, they said, it is better not to spend it on challenges in perilous political districts.
"If you look at all the gerrymandering that went on, it was shocking," said Mame Reiley, executive director of One Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner's political action committee. "When the lines are drawn and it weighs heavily for the Republicans, you need Don Quixotes who are willing to make the fight."
Republican leaders, however, dismiss the Democrats' accusations about redistricting as partisan whining.
Shawn M. Smith, communications director for the Republican Party of Virginia, said Democrats have failed to provide challengers because they have no winning message.
"The Democratic claims that they have somehow lost their majority because of Republican redistricting are just a sorry excuse," he said, noting that steady Republican gains in the past three decades were achieved despite redistricting controlled by Democrats.
"It just so happens that, with the sheer number of Republicans, there is no opposition because the majority of Virginians support our leadership," Smith said. "If the Democrats had a positive message to run on, they could engage in the debate on the issues."
The cost of running a campaign for the Virginia legislature is also sometimes cited as an impediment to the recruitment of candidates.
The typical House candidate in Virginia spent about $71,000 on campaign expenses in 2001, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics, which collects and disseminates campaign finance data. Often, however, candidates spend much more, using some of their own money as well.
In this election, state Senate challenger David M. Hunt (R) took out a home equity loan and at one point had contributed about $200,000 of his own money, he said. He still lost.
"Even before you can talk about the issues, you have to get the money," said Edwin Bender, executive director of the Institute on Money in State Politics. "Some people think, 'Why would I want to fight the battle?' "
Political experts differed on why Virginia's elections rank among the nation's least competitive. Some noted that modern two-party politics came relatively late to the state, which was dominated by Democrats after Reconstruction until about 30 years ago. And some attributed the trend to a strain of elitism that runs through the state's political culture and history.
"We have in Virginia a culture of nonparticipation -- we have fewer candidates generally for all offices," Sabato said. "Virginia was built on the concept that a few are born to rule and most people are born to be ruled."
Underscoring that argument, he noted that the dearth of candidates is least apparent in Northern Virginia, what he characterized as "the least Virginian part of Virginia."
Whatever the cause, the number of Virginia legislative seats without major-party competition has risen since the early 1990s, when the percentage was about 40 percent.
The proportion of House seats uncontested by Republicans or Democrats was particularly high this year, at 68 percent.
Of the 45 states that had House elections in 2002, only two states had a higher proportion of seats without major-party competition: South Carolina, at 72 percent, and Massachusetts, at 69 percent.
For dedicated voters such as Sones, the lack of choice is a fundamental flaw in the fabric of democracy. "When there's no competition, then a person doesn't feel that they are being pressed -- they can pretty much operate as they see fit," Sones said. "Everyone should be looking over their shoulder."
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.