Competitive Districts

Redistricting offers the opportunity to revitalize democracy in Montana

What is a competitive district?

A district is competitive when the number of voters of each party are close enough to equal that the candidate of either party could win. The outcome of the election is not a foregone conclusion. 

The opposite of a competitive district is a “safe seat,” a legislative district that is always won by the same political party. There are “safe” districts for Republican candidates and there are “safe” districts for Democrats. Who loses when a seat is safe?  The voters lose.

Research on competitive districts

Research has shown that voter turnout goes down in safe districts. Voters don’t need to go to the polls to vote; the outcome is a sure thing, so why vote?  Research has also shown that representatives are less responsive to constituent concerns while in office if they are in safe seats. 

Elections in safe districts are determined in the primary election and the dynamics of these primary races favor more radical, ideological candidates over those who are more moderate.  Candidates at the primary level must appeal to voters just within their own party.  When the district is safe for that party, voters are more likely to vote in the primary for the more radical candidate. In a competitive district, voters in the primary are more likely to choose a moderate candidate who can also win the votes from independents necessary to win in the general election.  

Once the primary is over, candidates in safe seats have little incentive to campaign by getting to know the diversity of their district.  There is no reason for them to reach out to their constituents; they will be elected by their party base. Once in office, representatives in safe districts have no reason to listen to the diversity of concerns in their district; they have only to keep the base that elected them happy to gain re-election. Representatives often take extreme positions on issues that may play well to their base, but do nothing to further the constructive process of crafting legislation.    

The prevalence of safe districts over time has produced legislative bodies that are unable to get legislation passed because those elected to the body are too radical to come to agreement with those on the other side.  The polarization of politics is due in part to this dynamic of electing more radical candidates in safe seats.

Why do competitive districts matter? 

Voters are more engaged in districts that are competitive, i.e., where either party has a chance to win the seat. Representatives elected from competitive districts are more likely to be responsive to all their constituents’ concerns. Competitive districts also encourage voter participation in elections.  Competitive districts help keep our democracy vibrant and vital. 

One of the goals adopted by the Montana Commission is that it may consider competitiveness when drawing legislative districts.  The League of Women Voters of Montana supports competitiveness for Montana’s districts.  Analysis of the districts drawn by the last Commission in 2012 indicate that 83% of Montana’s current legislative districts are not competitive.  To put it another way, 83% of Montana’s districts could be considered “safe.”  Only 17% of legislative districts are competitive.  Montana can do better than that!