Comments
Via AL.com: Where are the candidates? No contests in 20 of 35 Alabama Senate districts on June 3
All 35 seats in the Alabama Senate are up for grabs this election year.
But candidates are sparse.
There are no contested races in 20 of the 35 districts in the June 3 primary, now less than three weeks away.
In fact, 14 senators – eight Republicans and six Democrats – will coast to new four-year terms with no opposition in either party.
Lack of competition means no real accountability.
Categories
I recall when I was just starting college, I noticed that a strongly Democratic part of the state (MA) had a Republican congressman, Silvio Conte. I asked the Dem. Party group in the district why no one was running against him. The answer was that he was good for the district and that there were no Republican candidates that could do better. So, they weren’t going to oppose him.
I’m not sure if that works out as a failure of democracy.
In fact, 14 senators – eight Republicans and six Democrats – will coast to new four-year terms with no opposition in either party.
This arguably is the most problematic point. Even in districts where there is no viable across the aisle opposition, there could have been the hope of an in-party challenge (if for no other reason to raise issues).
Unfortunately, the current funding system makes running a symbolic/pyrrhic campaign unlikely. Even at the local level, who wants to invest that amount of resources as (or supporting) a candidate who is most likely going to lose?
@Tillman:
Could be, then there’s this Selma Times-Journal article which tells us some incumbents failed to report paying filing fees on their financial reports.
Then there’s the odd finding that a challenger’s neighborhood seems to be the last to get roads paved, state grant checks not delivered etc.
Lack of competition means no real accountability.
It’s also a prima facie reason to investigate what is dampening interest in running for office in that district.
As @John Burgess notes, there is a possible positive explanation.
As @walt moffett hints, there are several possible negative explanations.
Cynic that I am, I know which one I think has the higher prior probability.
But this is what Americans want. This is the result of the policy decisins that have been made in the last forty years. Americans want to go to the polls and know that they are voting for the winner. Given the demographic trends in the U.S and their impact on the future, most people will not vote in a single competitive election.
The real question is what is the impact on governmental policy and governance when elections no longer matter.
