The Disappearing Competitive District
Once upon a time, U.S. congressional elections regularly featured dozens of true battlegrounds—districts where either party could plausibly win and voters’ choices felt genuinely up for grabs. Fast forward to 2025, and the landscape has changed dramatically. Today, barely a tenth of all House seats are considered toss-ups or even “lean” districts, with the overwhelming majority drawn to strongly favor one party or the other. This trend is not merely a statistical curiosity—it is a fundamental shift that threatens the core democratic principle that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.
So, what’s driving this transformation? The answer, in large part, is gerrymandering: the age-old (but increasingly technologically sophisticated) practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor one party. Both Republicans and Democrats engage in it, but the net effect has been a steady erosion of competitive races and, by extension, diminished voter power and participation [1][2].
How Gerrymandering Works—and Why It Matters
At its core, gerrymandering manipulates the map-drawing process to create “safe” districts for incumbents or one party. This can be done through “cracking” (splitting opposition voters across districts to dilute their influence) or “packing” (concentrating them in a few districts to minimize their impact elsewhere). As a result, most voters find themselves in districts where their vote is unlikely to affect the outcome, leaving real competition to a shrinking handful of districts [3][4].
“Partisan gerrymandering reduces electoral competition and makes the partisan composition of the US House less responsive to shifts in the national vote.” [5]
The numbers are stark: in 2024, only 27 out of 435 House districts were considered toss-ups, and nearly 80 percent of these were in states where maps were drawn by independent commissions or courts—not partisan legislatures. In contrast, states with single-party control over redistricting—especially in the South and Midwest—have seen competitive districts nearly vanish. For example, in Texas, the number of competitive districts dropped from 12 of 36 to just 3 of 38 after the latest round of redistricting [1][2].
The Consequences: Participation, Accountability, and Polarization
Voter Engagement and Trust
When voters perceive elections as uncontested or predetermined, they disengage. Turnout drops, public trust in institutions erodes, and the sense that one’s voice matters all but disappears. In Wisconsin, the shift to fairer maps in 2024 saw a surge in voter engagement and participation—anecdotes from Sheboygan describe a “revival of political participation” and a renewed sense that votes matter when districts are competitive [6].
Across the country, however, the trend is moving in the opposite direction. Uncontested races are becoming more common, with about 10 percent of House elections now lacking a challenger from the other major party. In non-competitive districts, voters report feeling less informed, less engaged, and less empowered to hold their representatives accountable. Primaries, not general elections, become the only contests that matter—driving candidates toward ideological extremes and away from compromise [4].
Government Function and Polarization
The move to “safe” districts has another pernicious effect: it fuels polarization. When the only threat to an incumbent comes from within their own party, politicians have little incentive to appeal to the broad middle. Instead, they cater to the most ideologically committed primary voters, resulting in more extreme legislation and less compromise. Freedom House has repeatedly cited partisan gerrymandering as a key driver of America’s deepening polarization and its declining democratic score [7][8][9].
“It is the practice of partisan gerrymandering that has the most corrosive and radicalizing effect on US politics, generating a multitude of districts in which one party can be virtually certain of victory.” [8]
Representation and Minorities
The impact is especially acute for racial and ethnic minorities, who are often “packed” or “cracked” in ways that dilute their voting power. While some court interventions have forced the creation of majority-minority districts (as in Louisiana and Alabama), the overall trend is toward less representation for minority communities—especially as the Supreme Court has limited federal oversight of redistricting [10][3][11].
What Does This Mean for U.S. Democracy?
Freedom House and the Metrics of Democratic Health
Freedom House, which scores countries on factors such as the fairness of elections, participation, functioning of government, rights of expression and association, rule of law, and individual rights, has systematically downgraded the United States over the past decade. The U.S. score dropped from 94/100 to 83/100, placing it alongside countries like Panama and Romania rather than traditional peers such as Germany or the U.K. [8][12][13].
Gerrymandering is explicitly cited as a driver of this decline, not just for the way it distorts election outcomes, but for how it undercuts public confidence, fosters minority rule, and entrenches polarization. As Freedom House warns, “the state of US democracy has implications for freedom and democracy around the world” [7].
Long-Term Risks: Entrenchment and Erosion
Absent significant reform, the risk is that these trends become self-perpetuating. As competitive districts vanish, incentives for reform diminish, public trust erodes further, and the United States drifts toward the category of a “flawed democracy”—or worse. The erosion is not only national but subnational: state-level democratic backsliding, especially in states with unified partisan control, drags down the national average and undermines the functioning of democracy at every level [14][15].
“Many states have enacted districting plans with partisan biases that decrease electoral competitiveness and responsiveness, limiting the voter's ability to hold politicians accountable.” [5]
Paths Forward: Reform and Resistance
There is no single fix, but the evidence is clear: independent redistricting commissions, as implemented in Michigan and California, have succeeded in making elections fairer and more competitive, boosting turnout, and restoring public trust [16][17]. Federal legislation—such as the stalled Freedom to Vote Act—could set nationwide standards, but faces daunting political obstacles [3][18].
Increasingly, the fight for fair maps is happening at the state level, through ballot initiatives, court challenges, and grassroots advocacy. Yet the momentum is uneven, and in many states, partisan incentives remain too strong for voluntary reform [1][19].
Conclusion: Why Competition Matters for Democracy
The vanishing of competitive elections is not an abstract concern for political scientists and pundits—it is a crisis for democracy itself. When voters are sidelined by engineered outcomes, when dissenting voices are drowned out by safe-seat politics, and when polarization replaces pluralism, the entire system suffers.
The lesson of the past two decades is clear: electoral competition is the lifeblood of democracy. Restoring it won’t be easy, but the health of America’s democracy—as measured by elections, participation, functioning of government, free expression, organizational rights, rule of law, and individual rights—may depend on it.