There Are 150 Completely Uncompetitive House Races in This Year’s Midterms

Election Day is still over three months away, but more than one-third of the seats in the House of Representatives have effectively been decided—with no input from voters.

The list of those uncontested elections includes some high-profile figures, like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R–Ohio). They are among dozens of incumbents who are all but guaranteed another two years in office after running unopposed in their primaries and representing districts where a loss in November is nearly unthinkable.

That list also includes many districts from so-called swing states. In 12 of the 17 congressional districts in Pennsylvania and 12 out of 28 in Florida, this year’s midterm election is over before it even began.

When you add it all up, 150 of this year’s congressional races featured no meaningful competition, according to a new report from Unite America, a nonprofit advocating for election reforms.

“These 150 candidates, mostly incumbents, ran unopposed in the dominant party primary for districts that the Cook Political Report rates as uncompetitive in the general election,” the report explains. “In other words, we already know not only which party is all but guaranteed to win these seats in November, but which person will win.”

This is an underappreciated problem plaguing American democracy—and one that contributes to other, more visible problems, like gerontocracy and Congress’ general flaccidity in the face of executive overreach. In those 150 districts where there are no competitive elections this year, over 84 million Americans have been effectively disenfranchised. Those voters can’t make a different choice, no matter how badly they might want one.

And polls suggest many voters really want one. Congress’ approval rating has been in the toilet for years, but a recent Gallup poll showed that 86 percent of Americans disapproved of Congress, tying a record high.

“In poll after poll, voters say our democracy isn’t working, or that elected officials don’t care what they think,” Meredith Sumpter, president and CEO of Fair Vote, a nonprofit that advocates for ranked choice voting and proportional representation, told Reason via email in response to the Unite America report. “There’s a direct connection between that dissatisfaction and our totally uncompetitive elections.”

According to Fair Vote’s data, most congressional races are not very competitive—even when there is an opponent on the ballot. In 2024, the average margin of victory in House races was 27 points, and only 9 percent of races were decided by less than five points.

The new Unite America report points out that some states seem to be bucking the national trend—thanks to some recent election reforms.

Across California, Washington, and Hawaii, only five of the 63 House seats lack competition this year. The group chalks that up to the open, all-candidate primaries that those states employ.

California and Washington have top-two primary systems, while Alaska uses a top-four primary. In elections held in those systems, all candidates compete in a single primary election, and the top-performing candidates advance to the general election—think of it like a playoff that comes after a regular season in sports.

Those aren’t perfect ideas. The California primary system, in particular, has attracted critics who dislike how it often results in two candidates from the same party advancing to the general election.

Still, the alternative seems worse. With more than one-third of this year’s House candidates running unopposed, Americans should be embracing any and all ideas that aim to make elections more competitive. In addition to opening up primaries, lower ballot access requirements for third parties would help create more competitive political terrain.

“When more than a third of the seats see no competition at all, polarization and gerrymandering can explain some of the problem, but not all,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Other problems, Olson wrote via email, include the high costs of mounting serious campaigns and the major political parties’ failure to recruit good candidates.

“None of these,” he wrote, “are exactly good signs for democracy.”