81% of this year’s U.S. House elections are safe for one party – meaning that fewer than one in five voters will vote in a competitive House race. And that’s a generous definition of “competitive” – another 12% of seats lean toward one party or the other. Only 7% are true tossups. 

In safe seats, millions of voters will cast votes for candidates who never had a chance to win. Meanwhile, the number of voters who determine control of the House will be a small fraction of the voters who go to the polls in November.

The Senate picture isn’t much rosier. The Cook Political Report rates just 13 of this year’s 33 Senate races as competitive, and only seven as true tossups. 61% of Senate seats this cycle are safe for one party.

One reason for the lack of competition is gerrymandering, where district lines are drawn to advantage a particular party or group of voters. However, gerrymandering isn’t the whole story. The problem has been getting worse – but even before the “gerrymandering wars” of recent years, a majority of House seats were safe for one party. In 1996, for instance, only 184 seats – about one-third of the House – were competitive.

The heart of the problem is our single-member districts. Many Americans live in clusters with other members of their party – think of how Democrats disproportionately live in cities, and Republicans disproportionately live in rural areas. In some places, even well-intentioned mapmakers might have trouble crafting competitive districts – like Massachusetts, where Republicans make up about a third of the state’s people, but are so evenly spread out that it’s almost impossible to draw a district where Republicans have a chance to win.

Massachusetts congressional districts

Our elections limit their impact, too. Most states use choose-one voting, where picking an independent or minor-party candidate likely means the voter will “waste” their vote on someone other than the two finalists. This leads many voters to pick the “lesser of two evils” – instead of the person they most believe in. Minor candidates who run are often dismissed as “spoilers,” and many potential candidates choose not to run at all – further limiting voters’ options.

In fact, in the nation’s few competitive races, Republicans and Democrats are accusing each other of planting minor candidates to be spoilers. For example, Republicans in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District claim Democrats are funding message-testing on behalf of a Libertarian, to draw support from the Republican nominee. A Republican PAC spent over $1 million to boost a socialist candidate for Senate in Ohio – in an apparent attempt to siphon votes from the Democrat.

Several of this year’s major races could be determined by how votes happen to split, rather than by what a majority of voters want. The closely watched U.S. Senate election in Texas is a prime example. Most coverage is on the tight race between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico. But according to Emerson College Polling, Libertarian Ted Brown is backed by 2% of voters – larger than the poll’s 1% margin between Paxton and Talarico. In a race this close, it’s possible that Paxton and Brown together get more votes than Talarico, but Talarico wins because conservative voters are split. 

Michigan’s Senate race shows how the spoiler effect can cut either way. In addition to Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers, candidates from the Libertarian, Green, U.S. Taxpayers, and Natural Law parties are on the ballot. Those four candidates are polling at a combined 7%, larger than the gap between the major party candidates. 

Polling shows similar dynamics are Senate races in Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, and Nebraska, as well as House races like North Carolina’s 1st or Colorado’s 8th. Again, with so few races likely to decide control of Congress, it’s striking that even the outcomes of these could depend on how votes split instead of what most voters want.

No. In 128 statewide and congressional primary elections this year, the winners did not have support from a majority of their own party. That’s the highest number since FairVote began tracking.

For example, Florida Republican Jim Schwartzel and Illinois Democrat Daniel Biss each won their primaries with just 29% of the vote. Both seats are safe for their parties, so they’re all but certain to sail to election in November.

FairVote projects that 22 freshman members of the incoming House of Representatives will be elected this way: nominated without even a majority from their own party, and then winning an uncompetitive seat in November. 

Read more about the flaws in our primaries in FairVote’s Fewest Votes Wins report.

Ranked choice voting and proportional representation can help give Americans better elections and better government.

With RCV, voters can rank candidates in order of preference. If their top choice can’t win, their vote counts for their next choice. This eliminates the fear of “spoilers” that holds back minor candidates from gaining traction, because voting your conscience doesn’t mean giving up your power. RCV also ensures winning candidates have support from a majority of voters.

RCV is already used in Alaska, Maine, and dozens of cities and counties. In Alaska’s competitive U.S. Senate race, RCV means all voters can weigh in on the choice between frontrunners – Republican Dan S. Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola – even if they rank another candidate first. If RCV was used nationwide, the spoiler problem facing Michigan, Texas, and other states would be eliminated.

Map of the cities, counties, and states using ranked choice voting in the United States

Proportional representation, meanwhile, eliminates gerrymandering and makes more votes count. Instead of electing just one person, each congressional district would have several members – elected in proportion to the size of voting blocs in the district. For example, if 60% of voters prefer conservatives in a five-member district, then three of the five winners would be conservatives. Even if you’re drawn into a district where you aren’t in the majority, you could still elect a representative of your choice.

Together, ranked choice voting and proportional representation can give millions more Americans a meaningful say in their elections.