For immediate release                                                                                                    For more information contact:
August 17, 2000                                                                                                               Janice Thompson 503-283-1922

"Democracy is best served by a reasonable amount of competition in elections," asserts Janice Thompson, coordinator of the Money in Politics Research Action Project. "But due to the impact of campaign contributions on the success of campaigns, too few of the upcoming general elections look like they will be genuine contests."

MiPRAP tracked four levels of candidate competitiveness using primary contribution data¹ and reports showing cash balances² after the primary elections. The most competitive level, 4, involves opponents having cash balances and primary contributions within 75 to 100% of each other. The third level identifies races where opponents have cash on hand as well as primary contributions at levels within 50 to 75% of each other. The second level of competitiveness is when opponents received primary contributions and have cash balances within 25 to 50% of each other. Level 1 designates races with the lowest level of competition since one opponent has only 0 to 25% of the cash on hand as the other candidate in the race as well as much lower contribution levels. It is important to note that these levels of competition reflect this "start up" period for the general election. Nevertheless early indications of fundraising success often reflect eventual electoral success.
 

2000 Senate General Election  "Start up" Competitiveness
Competitiveness	# of races	% of 15 races
Unopposed	5	33%	40%	80%
Write-in challenger	1	7%
Level 1	6	40%
Level 2	1	7%
Level 3	1	7%
Level 4	1	7%

 
 

2000 House General Election  "Start up" Competitiveness
Competitiveness	# of races	% of 60 races
Unopposed	12	20%	23	68%
Write-in challenger	2	3%
Level 1	27	45%
Level 2	12	20%
Level 3	5	8%
Level 4	2	3%

 

Unopposed major party candidates are also prevalent with 33% of Senate races having only one candidate at this time. Twenty percent of House races have only one major party candidate. Third party or independent candidates may join some of these races which would introduce some level of competition. However, no candidate from these categories has won in the last several election cycles with one exception. Bob Jenson won as an independent in 1998 as part of his transition from the Democratic to Republican party.

Three write-in candidates surfaced as challengers during the May primary, one in the Senate and two in the House. No write-in candidate won in the last two election cycles so it seems unlikely that any of these challengers will win in November. Several successful candidates in their own party's primary won on a write-in basis in the other party's primary in which there were no candidates. However, the three write-in candidates considered here are challengers, not a candidate locking in a win in both party primaries.

When races with an unopposed major party candidate and races with write-in challengers are added together the percentage of races that can, in all likelihood, be considered won at this stage in the process is 40% in the Senate and 23% in the House.

Adding these two categories to the level 1 candidates (where the large difference in amount of campaign funds indicates low levels of competitiveness) increases the percentages of races to 80% in the Senate and 68% in the House where predicting a general election winner seems possible now.

These projections will hopefully be proved wrong in November but past history indicates that significantly higher amounts of campaign contributions is strongly correlated with election winners. "This lack of meaningful choice for voters seems like a factor in apathy about elections and is a disturbing trend in the health of our democracy," says Janice Thompson.