In two May columns — “After the SCOTUS ruling, a bigger question: Where’s the competition?” and “Why primaries Matter” — I wrote about low participation in primary elections and the consequences for voters who are dissatisfied with their general-election choices.
Voter participation is critical, but meaningful elections also require candidates willing to run.
More candidates entered Georgia’s legislative races this year than in recent elections. Even so, a PeachPol analysis found that 81 General Assembly races—61 in the House and 20 in the Senate—have only one candidate on the November ballot.
In those contests, voters will see only one listed candidate for the office. Many of those candidates are incumbents.
These one-candidate races ought to concern all of us.
Some of these races have been occupied by individuals for many years, even decades, without competition to represent the people. This is not the way our republic is supposed to function.
Can we call these more than 85 races a true election? Why are these races so non-competitive?
Some theories are that it is challenging to get people who are willing to run for office. Some of the apprehension is due to the way people are physically or verbally attacked just for being a candidate. Some are also wary because of issues in their past that, if amplified, can do harm to the candidate or the candidate’s family.
Politically, people refrain from running for office because of the lack of support by the political parties.
The political parties have the infrastructure such as past donor contact information, amounts given, volunteer information, relationships with community groups and civic organizations, get-out-the-vote groups, and the history of organizing.
The strength of infrastructure and history creates trust in the community around candidates — even if those political candidates have not been winning elections. The consistency of being present is what gives political parties an emotional advantage and trust connection with community members.
The two political parties also could have the advantage of being the consistent viable systems creating barriers to any independent political parties. The financial, historical and infrastructure of the two political parties creates two dominant organizations pushing others away from participation — especially in partisan elections.
The Peach Pulse
Become a founding subscriber
Get PeachPol’s exclusive Georgia political reporting and analysis — and lock in your founding subscriber rate as long as your subscription remains active.
Parties frequently concentrate money, staff and recruitment efforts in districts they consider competitive, leaving candidates in heavily partisan districts without major-party opposition.
The lack of competition goes beyond the General Assembly. We see this occur in more localized races including school board, district attorney and judges. Again, where is the competition?
Gerrymandering and uncontested elections are not the same, but they can reinforce each other. When district boundaries make one party’s victory appear inevitable, prospective challengers and political donors may decide that a race is not worth contesting.
There are many ways voters feel left out of the electoral process, including the belief that the outcome is already determined so voting does not matter. In this case, can we agree? If the voters’ only “choice” is one person, the voters’ “choice” is whether or not to select the solo candidate.
Perhaps we should consider whether the current non-competitive nature of state and local officials is the most appropriate approach to increasing civic engagement and trust in our government and our government officials.
Is that an election or a selection?
Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in Political Science and teaches public policy.
Want sharper Georgia political analysis in your inbox? Become a founding subscriber to The Peach Pulse.
